Social Implications of a Computerized Society Lecture 5

  • Slides: 48
Download presentation
Social Implications of a Computerized Society Lecture 5 Instructor: Oliver Schulte Simon Fraser University

Social Implications of a Computerized Society Lecture 5 Instructor: Oliver Schulte Simon Fraser University

Outline • Freedom of Speech: traditional views and issues. • New internet-related issues: –

Outline • Freedom of Speech: traditional views and issues. • New internet-related issues: – enforcing existing restrictions on free speech. – legal status of internet companies: publisher or common carrier? – treatment of spam • Anonymity: to what extent should internet users be anonymous? • Access: who, if anyone, controls access to the net? And how?

Key Concepts • Common Carrier • Principles for liability of technology providers • Government

Key Concepts • Common Carrier • Principles for liability of technology providers • Government interference with free speech.

General Definition and Justification FREEDOM OF SPEECH

General Definition and Justification FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Freedom of Speech • Canadian Charter: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …b) freedom

Freedom of Speech • Canadian Charter: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. ” • Similar rights in all Western democracies.

Free Speech Guidelines • Distinguish speech from action. Advocating illegal acts is (usually) legal.

Free Speech Guidelines • Distinguish speech from action. Advocating illegal acts is (usually) legal. • Laws must not chill expression of free speech. • Do not reduce adults to reading only what is fit for children. • Solve speech problems by the least restrictive means.

Freedom of Speech as a Right (Deontology) • One of the main negative liberties

Freedom of Speech as a Right (Deontology) • One of the main negative liberties (freedom to act). • Promotes and protects other liberties (freedom to criticize the government, demand one’s other rights).

Freedom of Speech: Utilitarian Perspective • J. S. Mill, “On Liberty”: Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech: Utilitarian Perspective • J. S. Mill, “On Liberty”: Freedom of Speech promotes social welfare because it allows us to propose good policies and oppose bad ones.

Freedom Speech: Universalist/Golden Rule • “Freedom is always the freedom of those who disagree”.

Freedom Speech: Universalist/Golden Rule • “Freedom is always the freedom of those who disagree”. Rosa Luxemburg. • “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Voltaire.

Free-speech Principles – Advocating illegal acts is legal – Does not protect libel and

Free-speech Principles – Advocating illegal acts is legal – Does not protect libel and direct, specific threats – Inciting violence is illegal – Allows some restrictions on advertising – Protect anonymous speech

Traditional Restrictions of Free Speech • • discussion of bombs at airport laws against

Traditional Restrictions of Free Speech • • discussion of bombs at airport laws against defamation Physical threats Nazi Slogans, Auschwitz denial in France. • in Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense.

Hard Cases for Free Speech • Obscenity vs. erotica. • Spam. • Anonymous speech

Hard Cases for Free Speech • Obscenity vs. erotica. • Spam. • Anonymous speech is often viewed as bad manners, cowardly, anti-social---but it is protected by law. • “Anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honourable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. ” • Software

Software As Speech • In the 1990 s, the U. S. government restricted publishing

Software As Speech • In the 1990 s, the U. S. government restricted publishing and posting encryption software. • Several court cases, finally federal U. S. judge found that “for the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech”.

CONTAINING THE WEB

CONTAINING THE WEB

Internet = More and more Free Speech (? ) “For the first time in

Internet = More and more Free Speech (? ) “For the first time in history, we have a many-to-many medium, in which you don’t have to be rich to have access, and in which you don’t have to win the approval of an editor or publisher to speak your mind. The Internet. . . holds the promise of guaranteeing, for the first time in history, that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press means as much to each individual as it does to Time Warner, or to Gannett, or to the New York Times. ” Mike Goodwin, 1994

New issues about free speech arising from the internet Outline • Enforcement of existing

New issues about free speech arising from the internet Outline • Enforcement of existing restrictions on free speech. • Attempts to extend restrictions for internet. International issues. • Legal status of internet companies (ISPs, Google, E-bay, AOL): broadcaster or common carrier?

STATUS OF INTERNET PLATFORMS

STATUS OF INTERNET PLATFORMS

Enforcement of existing restrictions: Legal Approaches • Often difficult to enforce restrictions on individuals:

Enforcement of existing restrictions: Legal Approaches • Often difficult to enforce restrictions on individuals: – anonymity on the internet (supported by remailers, anonymizing software). – easy to open websites, e-mail accounts. – privacy protection limits gvt access to records of on-line activity. Ø Governments go after businesses that provide internet communication.

The Conceptual Challenge • Traditional Distinction: – publisher/broadcaster (e. g. , Mac. Lean’s, CBC).

The Conceptual Challenge • Traditional Distinction: – publisher/broadcaster (e. g. , Mac. Lean’s, CBC). – common carrier (e. g. , Telus). • Publishers: – liable for content – right to freedom of expression – right not to publish • common carrier: – not liable for content – must give universal access

Discussion Question • Are internet companies like Google, Facebook, E-Bay publishers or common carriers?

Discussion Question • Are internet companies like Google, Facebook, E-Bay publishers or common carriers? Do they fit these categories?

A New Kind of Animal • Internet communication companies are not common carriers. –

A New Kind of Animal • Internet communication companies are not common carriers. – can block access, e. g. spammers. – Ebay: no Ku Klux clan memorabilia • Internet companies are not broadcasters: not liable for content (in North America)

Are internet companies simply technology providers? Cons: • Companies keep interacting with users, not

Are internet companies simply technology providers? Cons: • Companies keep interacting with users, not just sell technology once. • They often control most of the communication in their niche, e. g. a website blocked from Google will be missed by many people.

Censorship and Companies • Californian BBS operators were prosecuted in Tennessee for pornographic content

Censorship and Companies • Californian BBS operators were prosecuted in Tennessee for pornographic content posted on their bulletin board. • Yahoo and its CEO were sued by French government for Nazi memorabilia sold on their auction site. • Google eventually complied with Chinese censorship laws about criticizing the gvt, reporting on natural disasters, and talking about censorship.

Company Liability for Content • An important general principle (North America): If a technology

Company Liability for Content • An important general principle (North America): If a technology has substantive legal uses, the technology provider is not liable for illegal uses. (“guns don’t kill people…”). • Internet companies like Google are viewed as technology providers, not publishers/broadcasters, so they are not generally liable for illegal content. • But increasing gvt pressure for more regulation: – guarantee visibility for various viewpoints (e. g. conservative) – restrict access to criminal activities (drug-dealing, sex trafficking)

German’s “Facebook law” • In 2017, Germany passed the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz • Applies to social

German’s “Facebook law” • In 2017, Germany passed the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz • Applies to social networks with >2 M users • Company is liable for removing illegal content: hate speech, copyright violation, personality appropriation • Company must respond quickly to complaints: 24 hours for blatant violations, 7 days for investigations • May have to reveal identity of posters to support lawsuits. • High fines for violation, up to 50 M Euros.

Restricting the Web: Technological Approaches • In Canada, filters block access to pornographic sites

Restricting the Web: Technological Approaches • In Canada, filters block access to pornographic sites in libraries, schools.

Issues with Filters • Hard to eliminate both false positives and false negatives, despite

Issues with Filters • Hard to eliminate both false positives and false negatives, despite machine learning. – False positives: Beaver College, Yale U biology department website. – False negatives (about 91%): files within documents. • Private use is fine, but gvt mandate is restrictive considering the false positives (e. g. , in libraries). • Important general principles: – Adults should not be restricted to only what is suitable for children. – The government should use the least intrusive means to enforce the law (e. g. , filters rather than shut down ISPs).

Discussion Question • Child/parent advocates argue that the internet poses a new kind of

Discussion Question • Child/parent advocates argue that the internet poses a new kind of danger to children poses it brings pornographic content directly into the home. Do you agree that there is a new threat? Do you think the new threat requires new solutions? What solutions would you favour (e. g. , technical, economic, legal)?

THE GLOBAL INTERNET

THE GLOBAL INTERNET

Censorship vs. Freedom Tools for communication, tools for oppression • Authoritarian governments have impeded

Censorship vs. Freedom Tools for communication, tools for oppression • Authoritarian governments have impeded flow of information and opinion throughout history. • The vibrant communication of the Internet threatens governments in countries that lack freedom of speech. • Some countries own the Internet backbone within their countries and block specific sites and content at the border • Some countries ban all or certain types of access to the Internet

Examples • Chinese regulations prohibit “producing, retrieving, duplicating, and spreading information that may hinder

Examples • Chinese regulations prohibit “producing, retrieving, duplicating, and spreading information that may hinder public order”. • China has more than 2 M people monitoring the web. • Banned discussion of Mossack Fonseca paradise papers. • In December 2007, China's government announced a policy that all new video sites must be owned or controlled by the government. • In Russia, bloggers with more than 3000 daily readers must register with the government and provide their home address -> chilling effect • Also Iran, Turkey.

The Internet is Global • Avoiding censorship: the global nature of the Net allows

The Internet is Global • Avoiding censorship: the global nature of the Net allows restrictions (or barriers) in one country to be circumvented by using networks in other, less restrictive countries. • Creating censorship: the global nature of the Net makes it easier for one nation to impose restrictive standards on others. • Examples: – U. S. outlawed sports gambling – France requires Google to enforce the right to be forgotten for all searches anywhere.

International Dimension • What if Google is liable for certain content under French law

International Dimension • What if Google is liable for certain content under French law or Chinese law? Do we end up with the lowest common denominator? • Possible technological solution: geotargeting (as with on-line music, dvds).

Discussion Question Will the Internet and related communication technologies be tools for increasing political

Discussion Question Will the Internet and related communication technologies be tools for increasing political freedom, or will they give more power to governments to spy on, control, and restrict their people? Copyright © 2018, 2013, 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Aiding foreign censors and repressive regimes • Google in China: – 2006 introduced restricted

Aiding foreign censors and repressive regimes • Google in China: – 2006 introduced restricted google. cn – 2010: stopped after hack attack on Gmail accounts of Chinese activitists – 2018: new discussion of. Project Dragon. Fly • Microsoft provided modified version of Skype for China to allow surveillance

Discussion Question • Should companies like Google aid countries like China in enforcing their

Discussion Question • Should companies like Google aid countries like China in enforcing their national censorship laws? • Should companies like Google support the same rights foreigners as for North Americans? • What would be a utilitarian analysis? Deontologist based on rights?

ANONYMITY

ANONYMITY

Anonymity on the web • Most web postings are anonymous (user name only). •

Anonymity on the web • Most web postings are anonymous (user name only). • Important for privacy (gay chat room, reviews, opinions). Also used by government agencies (CIA) for anonymous surveillance. • Supported by re-mailers andanonymizing software.

Concerns with Anonymity • It hides crime/criminals • Glowing reviews (e. Bay or Amazon.

Concerns with Anonymity • It hides crime/criminals • Glowing reviews (e. Bay or Amazon. com) may actually be from the author, publisher, seller, or their friends. Similarly, bad reviews may be from competitors, stock market manipulators. • Enables on-line attacks in comments and social media

Discussion Question: Government against Anonymity • As with anti-encryption legislation, U. S. and European

Discussion Question: Government against Anonymity • As with anti-encryption legislation, U. S. and European countries working on laws that require ISPs to maintain records of the true identity of each user and maintain records of online activity for potential use in criminal investigations • Do you agree with this policy? In addition to your own opinion, look at it from utilitarian, rights-based and universalist perspective.

SPAM

SPAM

A New Problem: SPAM • Defn: unsolicited bulk e-mail. Mostly commercial advertising. • Possible

A New Problem: SPAM • Defn: unsolicited bulk e-mail. Mostly commercial advertising. • Possible because e-mail is so cheap! (a kind of fishing expedition) • Estimated at 30 billion/day worldwide. • AOL: fought for right to block Spam, sue spammers.

Discussion Question • Do you think spam should be blocked? By whom: the gvt,

Discussion Question • Do you think spam should be blocked? By whom: the gvt, ISPs, or individual users? • How should spam be stopped?

Should Spam be blocked? – Difficult to define SPAM, e. g. – survey company

Should Spam be blocked? – Difficult to define SPAM, e. g. – survey company e-mailed users who had signed up with them. – mailing lists. + Utilitarian Argument: costs on users, mail systems outweigh benefit to spammer. + Free speech is not an issue, especially with advertising spam.

Economic/Technical Solutions to Spam • Sender pays small charge to recipient, could depend on

Economic/Technical Solutions to Spam • Sender pays small charge to recipient, could depend on recipient (ie, charge only if unwanted mail). • Needs micropayment system. – may deter poor people, nonprofits from using e-mail. • Goodmail company: certifies e-mail as nonspam for small charge per mail. AOL, Yahoo, Time have signed up. • Filters: imperfect, false positives bad.

Legal Approach to Spam Can-Spam bill from U. S. congress • opt-out provisions •

Legal Approach to Spam Can-Spam bill from U. S. congress • opt-out provisions • not allowed to disguise sender in “From” • reaches only legitimate businesses

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

Summary • Free Speech Principles: – strong negative right – speech must not be

Summary • Free Speech Principles: – strong negative right – speech must not be chilled • Liability: broadcasters vs. common carriers • The internet globalizes free speech challenges and restrictions • Anonymity is strongly protected • Approaches to Spam